IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Samit Gopal, J.
Om Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2097 of 1982
Decided On : 15-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 228-A, 376 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313, 374 – First Information Report – Lacks of sufficient time – Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been filed by appellant against judgement and order passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Session Trial by which he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC to undergo six years rigorous imprisonment – Held, It is evident that the prosecution has succeeded in proving case beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellant – Version of first informant and victim 'X' regarding rape being committed on her by accused-appellant does not get dented throughout case – Medical evidence corroborates with prosecution version – Opinion of doctor also states of rape being committed on her – Victim 'X' was aged about 10 years at that time – Same has also not been a matter of challenge by accused-appellant – Judgment and order of conviction of trial court is upheld – Appellant is on bail – He shall be taken into custody to serve out sentences awarded to him by trial court – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant Om Prakash against the judgement and order dated 02.07.1982 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut in Session Trial No. 4 of 1981 (State of U.P. Vs. Om Prakash) by which he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC to undergo six years rigorous imprisonment.
2. The name of the prosecutrix is not being disclosed and mentioned in the present judgment in the light of directions of the Apex Court in various judgments and as per Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code. She is thus referred to as ‘X’ in the judgment.
3. The prosecution case as per an application dated 04.10.1979 given by Bakreeda to the police of which Dharmapal is the scribe is that on that day at about 12:00 noon his daughter victim 'X' aged about 10 years was mowing grass in the field of Kaliram in the jungle of village Jivana. Om Prakash son of Sukhvirey Kumhar forcibly caught hold of his daughter and took her to the jwar field and committed rape on her on which she started shouting, hearing which Dharmapal Singh son of Ram Swarup Jaat, his son Ayyub and Hashim son of Kutubuddin Darji of his village who were working in the field went to the place of occurrence and saw the accused doing the act. They reached near on which Om Prakash ran away. He was chased but could not be apprehended. He has brought his daughter victim 'X' for lodging of the report. She is bleeding from her private part. His report be lodged and legal action be taken. The said application is Exb: Ka-1 to the records.
4. On the basis of the said application, a First Information Report was lodged on 04.10.1979 at 17:10 hrs as Case Crime No. 215 of 1979, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Binoli, District Meerut against the accused-appellant Om Prakash son of Sukhvirey. The Chik FIR is Exb: Ka-5 to the records.
5. The Investigating Officer took into possession the clothes of victim 'X' which were blood stained and sealed it. A recovery memo for the same was prepared on 04.10.1979. Yoqoob Ali and Bakreeda are the witnesses of the same. The same is Exb: Ka-7 to the records.
6. Victim 'X' was medically examined on 04.10.1979 at 08:00 pm at Womens Hospital, Meerut by Dr. Rajni Gupta, Medical Officer. She was brought by the police constable. The doctor on physical examination noted as follows:-
On internal examination, the doctor noted as follows:-
Vaginal smear was sent for pathological examination and x-ray of wrist elbow and knee was advised. The doctor opined that no report can be given about the age at present. The patient was noted to be admitted in general ward. The said medical examination report is Exb: Ka-2 to the records.
A supplementary medical report was prepared on 29.10.1979 by Dr. Rajni Gupta, the Medical Officer, Womens Hospital, Meerut in which it was stated that there was no sperm seen in the vaginal smear. Further, the supplementary report was as follows:-
The said supplementary report is Exb: Ka-3 to the records.
7. The Investigating Officer prepared site plan of the occurrence on 04.10.1979. The same is Exb: Ka-6 to the records.
8. The investigation concluded and a Charge Sheet No. 112 of 1979 dated 04.12.1979 under Section 376 IPC against the accused-appellant was submitted. The same is Exb: Ka-4 to the records.
9. Vide order dated 16.09.1981 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against the accused-appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced victim 'X' as PW-1, Bakreeda the first informant and th
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kishanpal and Others
State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Chhotey Lal
Point of Law: “Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: “State of criminal law continues to be - as it should be - a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society.” Therefore, i....
The evidence of the victim was found to be trustworthy and credible, and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. did not affect the credibility of the prosecution version. The court confirmed the conviction ....
The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital and more reliable than that of an injured witness. Conviction can be founded on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelli....
The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital and can be relied upon without corroboration, and delay in lodging a complaint does not necessarily indicate falsehood.
Section 376(1) provides that Court may for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in judgment imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term less than 7 years.
The statement of the prosecutrix, if found credible and reliable, requires no corroboration. Punishment should be proportionate to the offence and the court must strike a balance between aggravating ....
Consent is immaterial in cases of minors under 16 years; sexual intercourse with a minor constitutes rape irrespective of their consent under Section 375 IPC.
The sole testimony of a child victim can suffice for conviction in rape cases if credible, with no requirement of corroboration unless substantial doubts arise.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.